justinlaster

I did address it, and you are ignoring it. I honestly do not care how insulted you are, or how rude you think I am. You removed any right to be cordially addressed when you pushed non-sense into this board, and then had the audacity to actually treat it as if you were being scientific.

Part of being scientific is asking your own position, "What does this look like if the theory is wrong?" It's called falsifiability. If the PDF you linked had the intellectual capacity and honesty to ask themselves that, then the PDF would have never been published.

Yet you nor the paper have yet to realize, again, some pretty fundamental economic concepts that explain the paper as a whole and why it's completely irrelevant to the conversation at large.

because the argument I made is for the free market, and the party I cited believes in the free market.

No because they put their blinders on and didn't bother to actually look at any other direction except for the one they wanted to see.

Allow me to be completely straight-forward with my final words: fuck off with your unscientific, dishonest drivel.

You're failing to see that mechanics behind the evolution of consumer markets that lead to prices being driven down.

How so? If anything, I succinctly recognized these so-called mechanics are really just symptoms of other underlying actions and motivations. The PDF wants to pretend like it's looking at market forces, while completely ignoring some fundamental economic theories.

Combined with your rude and arrogant dismissal of the link, your attitude embodies everything that is wrong with our political system and that prevents solutions from being found and implemented.

Your personal appeals to however insulted you feel or however blunt my response was isn't going to make anything that was stated in your comment or in the link any more substantive than it already is not.

Upon further investigation, the NCPA is a completely biased think-tank whose explicit goals are apparently "to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control." I've never even heard of the NCPA, but the whole contrived tone of the PDF immediately spiked my bullshit meter.

I'm sorry you think you can get away with espousing complete drivel that needs to cherry-pick information to push forward a narrative, contrary to the experiences of the rest of the world. I have a feeling the more and more I'm going to look into this perspective, the less friendly this conversation is going to become. At this point, I have zero tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.

It's at -1. I really should not need to explain why a luxury service is not at all analogous to a service that deals with life-threatening, chronic conditions with a population that may not always have the means to pay especially when that payment amount is built off of a shadow market place and several entities which are notorious for not giving a flying shit about people.

Don't be silly.

Cosmetic surgery provides price competition because patients pay the bills.

Is this supposed to be satire? Do I even need to explain how ridiculous this stance is? I'll save my energy until I get a resounding "yes."

Because Ford's actions had been expected/known for some time. Trump literally had nothing to do with it. You don't just spin up factories like an EC2 instance.

His other tweets regarding other companies were all future-tense, and companies he is in a position to bully. Except for Nordstrom, of course.

Probably rebasing more than anything. cherry-picking is a messier, yet easier way to get the same history, you just need to clean up after yourself.

Merge commits are useful, in my opinion, if there was significant work done to get two branches to "align" with each other. Otherwise, just rebase your work for a cleaner history.

So in short:

Merging: More "accurate" history about the work done to bring the work into the main/dev branch, yet messier.

Rebasing/cherry-picking: cleaner history, potentially at the expense of context and "accurate" history about the work done to bring in code to the main/dev branch.

--date-order

Why!?

things can pass testing but fail in production if the staging environment provides an imperfect simulation of the production environment

Your staging environment should match production, or it's not really staging at that point. It doesn't have to match it in _size_, just structure and process. Ignoring data loss, if you can't quickly switch staging to production it's not really staging. It's just a dorky test environment masquerading as a stage environment. It's also surprisingly not that difficult (the variation of difficulty depends on the type of data you're interacting with, and how isolated it needs to be) to "forward" a slice of real word traffic to your staging environment and monitor it for some duration of time.

For example, your staging environment servers should be connecting to a different database with a different password.

Handled by proper CI/CD pipelines. Completely irrelevant to deploying new features, configuration for production specific users/passwords happens on the sysadmin/devops side of things.

I thought this is what the NSA, CIA, and FBI were for? Maybe we can start downsizing them if we're just going to hand everything over.

Maybe then we might be able to use the numerous mathematically talented people they've snatched up for something actually productive.

My experience has been people who claim they're banned from groups for espousing different opinions actually did so in the least constructive way possible. They weren't banned for the opinion, they were banned for their conduct.

See: Reddit. With the notable exception of alt-right subs like /r/The_Donald -- who apparently have no issue with banning anyone they even _think_ is going against the hive mind.

But if you had some hypothetical state government with the will to stand up to them, that would be the end of it.

And then, when the state government can't stand up to them, we could use the federal government to do so!

If only someone suggested doing that in the first place.

You could, but it's unintuitive (in my opinion) to do so -- which was the parent's comment larger point. You're not doing anything different, and to an extent the latter is actually lying about what's going on (you're not writing HTML). I also lose a certain level of tooling by doing it the JSX way. Why try to mask what you're doing? Why make it harder for your tools to help you out?

I will never understand why people think JSX style processing is a good idea. It's hiding what's actually happening, at no benefit (or very little benefit). At least with the former (C#) I can neatly build things up, reuse those components, instead of passing some monstrosity around.

I think you're full of yourself.

You can use TFS with Git. Git will act as the underlying SCM.

It makes it far more likely.

You two are missing the point. See my reply to the parent comment of your post.

Science and technology would not be the fields that they are without such virtues. Your question is odd, the answer is kind of blatantly obvious.

I am not saying these people are infallible, I am saying that they are obviously equipped with better tooling and experience to make such judgements than someone who has no serious experience in dealing with "hard" subjects.

It was probably a mistake for me to explicitly list "STEM", but I thought it would hopefully convey my point a bit better. We live in an extremely technology oriented society, so it's a rather important subject to be decently versed in. However, a good, invested effort into the subject of philosophy would definitely be more than sufficient to make up for people's knowledge and reasoning errors.

Are we going to pretend this is not the case?

Insulting. But doesn't make it any less true or false. To presume that your average joe has bothered to play in the realm of academic, diligent logic and reason is a mistake. I am not saying you need to go into a university, I'm not claiming a piece of paper will lend you credibility in this regard. It's about the time and effort that people spend practicing these subjects.

How many people do you know outside of STEM that can comment on the characteristic of falsifiability of scientific theories? How many even bothered to take philosophy 101? How many have bothered to seriously invest themselves in substantive topics that will give them the tools and experience they need to make sound judgements in an array of different subjects?

We are talking about a society where in a large segment of the population does not believe credible scientific theories, and tend to latch onto what can and should be generally discarded viewpoints.

We (as a society) by and large do not hire people without basic math and reasoning skills; why do we suddenly pretend that these same qualifications should not be held in the justice system, or even entertain the idea that these qualifications should be raised to a higher standard. After all, juries sometimes have the power to ruin entire lives and families.

People's egos are not great bedrocks for their credibility and judgement to sit on. Let them be insulted.

Immigration built the west.

It didn't go over my head. You're just deluding yourself.

I'm drawing attention to the fact that they recive similar amounts of money and yet produce faaar more output then the Clinton Foundation and that's with the Red Cross being corrupt as hell.

Except they do not; at the very least you do not have any substantive evidence to back up that claim. Notice you could not source any of your examples, because they're not based on anything. They're just hypothetical scenarios with extremely arbitrary numbers and extremely contrived scenarios.

How come you did not source any examples from your other chosen charities to state they're actually "outputing" far more dollar for dollar? You were only extremely liberal with one -- going so far as to make up examples for it (despite most likely not having experience any relevant field for each charitable service). Why is that?

You claim the links you provided somehow qualify as "tangable" results, used as evidence for your overall point. Yet you chose to not link the equivalent pages from the clinton foundation website. Why is that?

Stop using conspiracy theories as facts.

You're concern trolling. The information is readily out there.

Your question puts forth a sense of "genuine" curiosity, but then later you compare the work the of the Clinton Foundation to that NAACP and Red Cross, and make judgements around that. So you presume to not know any charity work that's been done by the foundation, yet you're able to compare it to other charities. Why be so disingenuous?

The Clinton Foundation website has a litany of literature on its efforts around the world. Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation on overall 94.74/100 score [0].

In short, kindly fuck off out of here with what is either out right lies or willful ignorance.

[0] https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...

Politics is intertwined with everything. Not sure why you're trying to draw a line here.

Start ups are extremely "people" based entities. If you think the ACLU doesn't fit in with the YCombinator landscape -- given recent events -- then I'm not sure what I can really say to paint a more vivid picture to make you understand.

I get the feeling conservatives may not feel welcome at YC.

Sounds like a personal problem. "Oh no, an organization that defends people's liberties is making me feel uncomfortable!"

I bet you can get a lot of reddit gold thrown your way to start one...

That shade!

I wasn't talking about large enterprise corporations. I still don't see how you lose "chance encounters" over an online medium, especially when everything is in text and you are constantly just a few characters away from each other. There is more opportunity for other people to chime in, or think about an idea, or share their idea.

Your example seems really, really contrived.

I'm finding the exact opposite? Do you have any concrete examples that you would care to provide in the spirit of intellectual honesty?

If you think "but everything alters your chemical makeup" is a sufficient rebuttal

Considering that the original claim had no depth to it what so ever other than attempting to grandstand, it is odd you feel to have two completely different standards here. You have to point out why it isn't a sufficient rebuttal other than saying it doesn't. Time for some intellectual honesty. Or you can just blanket label people that consume certain things as having a "crutch" with absolutely no basis for such a claim.

when all it's proven is otherwise.

Where's the evidence for this?

It's not a "ridiculous position". It's a succinct rebuttal of a position that serves no purpose other than to grand stand. Evidence based perspectives are not intellectually dishonest.

A standard baseline for your typical, normal, healthy human being.

This is so vague. Ironic that you feel the need to claim I am being intellectually dishonest. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself compared to when I eat sugar? Based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is no. When I consume marijuana, am I doing more harm to myself than when I drink coffee? Again, based on all the available evidence we have, the answer is probably no. In fact caffeine is more likely to be harmful to me for a multitude of reasons.

group look bad by such poor arguments.

Meanwhile, the entirety of your statement is condensed down into "lol bad argument." Also, I don't actually smoke marijuana (I've tried it, it was "okay"), so your personal appeals are not only completely irrelevant and self-serving, they're useless as well.

You would do well to take all your charged criticism at my statement and apply it to your own; it fits it a bit better.

You can try to hyperbolically describe it as a "crutch", but if you're just going to ignore that you are in fact constantly chemically altered then I'm not sure what to tell you. The whole "be your own man" is baseless feel-good ego massaging.